• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

Welp, from that nutty piece and website, I have enjoyed learning about Pleiadians.


The Pleiadian diet and digestive system are arguably "exotic." Food is ingested from the mouth, broken down by an organ that vaguely resembles a stomach and transported through millions of capillaries to the skin, since Pleiadians accomplish excretion through their pores.[10]:70 The intestines are still present but vestigial in most races, to the extent that they can be up to 6 to 8 feet shorter.[10]:70 Fortunately, their clothing can reabsorb waste and convert it into lubricant.[10]:70 What selection pressure caused them not to use the anus for excretion and being constantly lubricated is anyone's guess. Pleiadians refuse to consume meat,[10]:70 despite the fact that their short intestines are appropriate for that.
Click to expand...

Nifty.
 
love the way the left and their hirelings keep renaming those who are skeptical of their currently fashionable climate claims (I'll leave aside their previous infatuations with the coming ice age, nuclear winter, acid rain):

first, it was global warming deniers

then, they moved on to climate change deniers, but that proved to be dishonest as well

so now we have climate science deniers, well, that wont work either because just as no one denies that the climate constantly changes, no one denies legitimate unpoliticized climate science, which is

the degree and precise causes of climate change remain unclear

the role of humans in possible climate changes is also unclear

the sun is the biggest factor in climate, and humans have no influence on the sun

if there is global warming, the questions become: to what extent is it caused by human activity, should anything be done by humans, can anything be done by humans and at what cost, can anything cost-effective and economically and scientifically viable be done?
 
sailordeac said:
Resilience, not political at all, no way
Click to expand...

It is political. However, I can also rely on the overwhelming consensus of actual climate scientists.

You made the claim that these people only draw conclusions that support grant funding.

I just wanted to show that the 500 people signing on to your skepticism are right wing think tank funded and a vast majority have no expertise in climate studies and many are economic geologists with ties to the oil and gas industry.

No wonder they think CO2 is great.
 
sailordeac said:
love the way the left and their hirelings keep renaming those who are skeptical of their currently fashionable climate claims (I'll leave aside their previous infatuations with the coming ice age, nuclear winter, acid rain):

first, it was global warming deniers

then, they moved on to climate change deniers, but that proved to be dishonest as well

so now we have climate science deniers, well, that wont work either because just as no one denies that the climate constantly changes, no one denies legitimate unpoliticized climate science, which is

the degree and precise causes of climate change remain unclear

the role of humans in possible climate changes is also unclear

the sun is the biggest factor in climate, and humans have no influence on the sun

if there is global warming, the questions become: to what extent is it caused by human activity, should anything be done by humans, can anything be done by humans and at what cost, can anything cost-effective and economically and scientifically viable be done?
Click to expand...

No one can be this stupid and brainwashed. Can they?
 
Good grief, sailor going all Simple Jack this morning.

Sad liddle snowflake.
 
sailordeac said:
love the way the left and their hirelings keep renaming those who are skeptical of their currently fashionable climate claims (I'll leave aside their previous infatuations with the coming ice age, nuclear winter, acid rain):

first, it was global warming deniers

then, they moved on to climate change deniers, but that proved to be dishonest as well

so now we have climate science deniers, well, that wont work either because just as no one denies that the climate constantly changes, no one denies legitimate unpoliticized climate science, which is

the degree and precise causes of climate change remain unclear

the role of humans in possible climate changes is also unclear

the sun is the biggest factor in climate, and humans have no influence on the sun

if there is global warming, the questions become: to what extent is it caused by human activity, should anything be done by humans, can anything be done by humans and at what cost, can anything cost-effective and economically and scientifically viable be done?
Click to expand...

Wait. Acid rain is a hoax?
 
Global warming is fake, look at this anecdote where it didn’t happen. The average temperature is warming, but it is part of a natural cycles. Global warming is real but man’s influence is too insignificant to contribute. Man is contributing to global warming but it is impossible to tell how much, so, no sense trying.
Yep, the dems keep changing their story.
 
No sailor this morning? Where's my morning entertainment?
 
Junebug says he has ethics now. You can laugh at that if you’d like
 
sailordeac said:
love the way the left and their hirelings keep renaming those who are skeptical of their currently fashionable climate claims (I'll leave aside their previous infatuations with the coming ice age, nuclear winter, acid rain):

first, it was global warming deniers

then, they moved on to climate change deniers, but that proved to be dishonest as well

so now we have climate science deniers, well, that wont work either because just as no one denies that the climate constantly changes, no one denies legitimate unpoliticized climate science, which is

the degree and precise causes of climate change remain unclear

the role of humans in possible climate changes is also unclear

the sun is the biggest factor in climate, and humans have no influence on the sun

if there is global warming, the questions become: to what extent is it caused by human activity, should anything be done by humans, can anything be done by humans and at what cost, can anything cost-effective and economically and scientifically viable be done?
Click to expand...
Well one thing you can stipulate is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has doubled to 400 ppm from 200 ppm in the last 40 years. 200 ppm is considered as acceptable. You can the say it is from cow flatulence if you wish but you cannot deny that it is there. Just think long and hard before you aquire any coastal property ala Mar-A-Lago.
 
Infatuation with Nuclear winter? Crazy environmentalists and their irrational fear of the consequences of all out nuclear war.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
Well one thing you can stipulate is the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has doubled to 400 ppm from 200 ppm in the last 40 years. 200 ppm is considered as acceptable. You can the say it is from cow flatulence if you wish but you cannot deny that it is there. Just think long and hard before you aquire any coastal property ala Mar-A-Lago.
Click to expand...

The Obamas are buying a beach house in Martha's Vineyard. Their actions show they are not too concerned about rising waters due to global warming.
 
awaken said:
The Obamas are buying a beach house in Martha's Vineyard. Their actions show they are not too concerned about rising waters due to global warming.
Click to expand...

Where on Martha’s Vineyard? What’s the elevation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top